Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (261997)	10/16/2009 12:44:14 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Windsock - I have to agree with FPG on this one. You don't see the Achievement Award given at the quarterly BUM as Intel's celebration of the best example of anti-competitive behavior? Isn't that part of Intel's culture? To encourage and award the best at breaking the Law?

To: Windsock who wrote (261997)	10/16/2009 10:25:48 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Apparently you are not aware that "Meet Comp" stands for meet competition. The "Meet Comp" process begins when the buyer says: "Hey, AMD is giving me a better deal." Intel responds by giving the buyer a new offer with a lower price and perhaps better terms to match the AMD offer. The competition can continue through more than one round until someone wins the order. In the Lenova case in the email, competition worked; Lenova achieved lower costs and one of the two competitors -- Intel -- won the business and the other -- AMD -- lost. The "Meet Comp" process is a legal safe harbor to defeat legal claims from a sore loser, like AMD. I'd agree with you if it weren't for the whole bunch of co-corroborating evidence (affidavits, emails, timing and economic analysis of rebates, competitive environment, and actual cancellation of in-progress product development of products based on sales that AMD had already won) that indicates Intel demanded exclusivity to get the rebates. fpg

To: Windsock who wrote (261997)	10/18/2009 2:17:46 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

I just had to revisit this email because earlier, I hadn't realized how fatally flawed your argument is. You start with a simple (yet incomplete) definition of Intel's Meet Comp Program: The "Meet Comp" process begins when the buyer says: "Hey, AMD is giving me a better deal." Intel responds by giving the buyer a new offer with a lower price and perhaps better terms to match the AMD offer. * MCP exists. (That shouldn't be controversial...) * It is applied when the buyer says they have a better offer from AMD. (i.e. Intel needs to compensate for its own inferior offer via MCP... A non-trivial admission!) * Next? "Intel responds by giving the buyer a new offer with [...] better terms." (A lower price falls into the category of "better terms." Stating it separately is redundant.) * Win! (And you're in The MCP Safe Harbor! Win again!) So: A) You've admitted that, by definition, MCP exists/existed to compensate for situations where Intel's offerings are/were uncompetitive, and B) Made a sweeping and unconditional claim that any "better terms" used to "Meet the Competition" fall into "The MCP Safe Harbor", which is clearly false: Terms including exclusivity requirements would clearly not fall into any safe harbor. The only way you can make B true is by defining the boundaries of The MCP Safe Harbor, and prove that Intel's MCP doesn't fall outside of it... I.e. the whole point of the lawsuits. Good job, you've at least robbed Elmer of one of his favorite lines of attack: That AMD lost sales due to inferior products and not because of the MCP. fpg